For some while now - maybe since the upgrade of the Board software earlier this year, but, on the other hand, maybe not, we've been having some issues with the Search function on the Board. Several members have now flagged this up, so I plan to do something about it.

This is a heads up - I'm about to try to recreate the Search function from scratch. There's no need for anyone to avoid the Board or anything like that - I don't need you all to get off the Board while I work. But, and it may be a big 'but', the Search function will cease to work altogether for a period of time while I try to rebuild it.

Seems to be all fixed. I entered keywords "reed", "goo", "turbid", "sling" and "tripe", and got hit numbers I would normally expect, "reed" being in the thousands and "turbid" being like thirteen or something. Looks like we stopped using that word around 2005.

Here we go again chaps. I am going to try to re-set the search function again. While I do that, please would you be patient and not try to use the search function? I know other folks have re-indexed databases before, but this is a really big database. Last time I re-set it, it took 12 hours. Any searches made during that time WILL slow the process further, so please don't until tomorrow.

You can carry on using any other Board functionality as normal. It is possible, however, that normal functions may appear slower than usual for a time.

_________________And now there was no doubt that the trees were really moving - moving in and out through one another as if in a complicated country dance. ('And I suppose,' thought Lucy, 'when trees dance, it must be a very, very country dance indeed.')

And don't think you'll necessarily get away with it unnoticed if you do. I can already name names.

Have you considered Google and other bots following up every conceivable link? You can't just tell them not to (unless you do it another way)!

And do you include the five 'view' links (View unanswered posts | View active topics | View unread posts | View new posts | View your posts), which are technically search but presumably not impacting Ben's indexing in the same way? (Because 'View active topics' is my normal bookmark for the site, and I must admit to forgetting it's 'search' because it's not called 'search', though I'd be surprised if you can really name names!)

And don't think you'll necessarily get away with it unnoticed if you do. I can already name names.

Have you considered Google and other bots following up every conceivable link? You can't just tell them not to (unless you do it another way)!

This is true. All the same, we are asking members to assist in lessening Ben's load.

Peter Duggan wrote:

And do you include the five 'view' links (View unanswered posts | View active topics | View unread posts | View new posts | View your posts), which are technically search but presumably not impacting Ben's indexing in the same way? (Because 'View active topics' is my normal bookmark for the site, and I must admit to forgetting it's 'search' because it's not called 'search', though I'd be surprised if you can really name names!)

It may be that View functions show up designated for Admin as searches. I hadn't considered that possibility, so I'll concede that I may have jumped the gun. But be assured that Admin can see which logged-in members are viewing what forums, reading specific threads or replying to posts, making new threads, running searches in general (whatever that should mean, apparently), composing, reading or replying to PMs (we can't read those if they're not our own, nor can we read over your shoulder in the course of any other composition, which is only right), or if they're simply viewing the Index Page, etc. It has its quirks, but it's there should we choose to avail ourselves of a view of the general activity. It's part of the toolbox.

It may be that View functions show up designated for Admin as searches. I hadn't considered that possibility, so I'll concede that I may have jumped the gun.

So do we need to lay off these or not? Or don't you know? They're all search.php?search_id=something, but users may not even be aware they're 'searches'...

Quote:

But be assured that Admin can see who specifically is viewing what forums, reading specific threads or replying to posts, making new threads, running searches in general (whatever that should mean, apparently), composing, reading or replying to PMs (we can't read those if they're not our own, nor can we read over your shoulder in the course of any other composition, which is only right), or if they're simply viewing the Index Page, etc. It has its quirks, but it's there should we choose to avail ourselves of a view of the general activity. It's part of the toolbox.

Oh, I'd expect that from experience of running other forums, but assume it still requires you to 'catch them in the act' real-time, whereas your previous comment had conjured up the more unlikely vision of an itemised log along the lines of 'Peter Duggan searched for **** at ****'!

I'd guess using the 'view' links show as running searches, which leaves me with a problem... I'm so used to clicking 'View active topics' automatically, I'm just not sure I can promise not to. In which case I might be better out of here till you're done, and someone can let me know when it's all over? Or, if you don't think the 'view' stuff is impacting Ben's work, I can just carry on and promise not to run a regular search (which I haven't done)?

Argh, I've just done it again! (After editing my post to match your edit I saw after I replied.)

Google's bot might follow links, but I can't see it typing in a text box, which is what it'll have to do to disrupt things.

_________________And now there was no doubt that the trees were really moving - moving in and out through one another as if in a complicated country dance. ('And I suppose,' thought Lucy, 'when trees dance, it must be a very, very country dance indeed.')

It may be that View functions show up designated for Admin as searches. I hadn't considered that possibility, so I'll concede that I may have jumped the gun.

So do we need to lay off these or not? Or don't you know? They're all search.php?search_id=something, but users may not even be aware they're 'searches'...

Quote:

But be assured that Admin can see who specifically is viewing what forums, reading specific threads or replying to posts, making new threads, running searches in general (whatever that should mean, apparently), composing, reading or replying to PMs (we can't read those if they're not our own, nor can we read over your shoulder in the course of any other composition, which is only right), or if they're simply viewing the Index Page, etc. It has its quirks, but it's there should we choose to avail ourselves of a view of the general activity. It's part of the toolbox.

Oh, I'd expect that from experience of running other forums, but assume it still requires you to 'catch them in the act' real-time, whereas your previous comment had conjured up the more unlikely vision of an itemised log along the lines of 'Peter Duggan searched for **** at ****'!

I'd guess using the 'view' links show as running searches, which leaves me with a problem... I'm so used to clicking 'View active topics' automatically, I'm just not sure I can promise not to. In which case I might be better out of here till you're done, and someone can let me know when it's all over? Or, if you don't think the 'view' stuff is impacting Ben's work, I can just carry on and promise not to run a regular search (which I haven't done)?

I just responded to this, but it doesn't seem to have posted. Basically, the only thing that matters is if people use the 'Search' function. 'View' doesn't work in the same way, and Google searches matter not one jot.

Other than that, please just leave me alone. I'll be OK once this is done.